This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Reuters Poll: Republicans and Democrats reversed on recognition for Palestine State and crediting Trump for hypothetical peace.
The statehood recognition phrasing annoyingly does not define a hypothetical Palestinian state. "If peace efforts are successful, Trump deserves significant credit" surprised me, a little, since Democrats didn't shy away from giving Trump credit for Operation Warp Speed, so you have to wonder whether this is signalling or policy disagreement with current peace proposals. On the one hand, there's no shortage of anti-Trump signalling. On the other, even more Democrats agreed with the statement "The United States should recognize Palestine as a country," so it's very possible the sample had a lot of Democrats who think hypothetical near-term peace would be in spite of US foreign policy, not because of it. I don't think this is logical, given the prior state of the conflict, but it doesn't need to be logical for people to think it. The non-partisan takeaway from the poll, so far as I can tell, is that "The United States should recognize Palestine as a country" is close to non-partisan, with only 53% of Republicans opposed and 58% and 59% agreement from "Other" and "All adults," respectively.
Which is not surprising, since even something like "West Bank minus East Jerusalem plus Gaza" is not acceptable for Israel.
To be fair, it was, until it wasn’t. If they’d accepted 1948 and stationed a Jordanian-Egyptian army garrison just outside East Jerusalem (which I guess would have been a Danzig-style international city) there would be no settlers on the West Bank.
The same could have been said for the Algerians who then took their land back.
Being given a deal where you are evicted from your ancestral homeland and forced out into the desert with no right to even return to the place you where born because some Eastern Europeans claim it is theirs is absurd.
The end of French Algeria is one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. It happened under American pressure but it really happened, ultimately, because the settlers did not fight to the death to save it. They had France to return to. The Israelis (most of them, anyway) lack the same luxury, even if they have dual citizenship it is to a land of which they know nothing and to whom they will never belong. Their only identity is Israeli, or Jewish.
Countless native civilizations have been destroyed before. As Churchill said, nobody now mourns the native Americans beyond the vapid and entirely European absurdity of “land acknowledgements”. The only time settler regimes ended despite real and proper resistance (see Rhodesia) had a 20:1 native to settler population ratio. Israel will soon be at 1:1 with the total Palestinian diaspora still in Arab lands.
There is a good chance that Israel is still destroyed in the lifetimes of most of the people reading this. But even in that scenario I anticipate it will still be a fight to the death for millions.
I doubt that, if the safety of Israel's population were seriously threatened, some countries in Europe would not open their gates to them no questions asked. (Not without irony, the main way I'd expect this to fail is that in some countries the Muslim population that washed up in no small part thanks to Israel's misadventures, and other things (such as, uh, Algeria) that rhyme with them, has become a significant enough voting block to provide a contrary incentive to politicians!)
If there were enough places for Jews to go to following an ethnic cleansing of Israel, they wouldn't lose basically every UN vote ever without American Security Council intervention.
That doesn't seem to follow. Just because you lose a vote doesn't mean you have no support. Presumably there were more than two votes in your favor, but if it's you and your bully friend against literally the entire world it might be time to start asking "are we the baddies?"
Also, to the extent Europe is unsafe for Jewish people, it's approximately 100% due to mass migration from Muslim countries.
The people of Israel dont seem to share this confidence.
I have considered this and have found the hypothesis lacking. Islam appears to be the cause of most of the baddieness in the region, and when it comes to my country in large numbers causes more bad stuff here.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but if there were to be mass migration from Israel, there would be conflict between the groups and the two-tier policing would favor the Muslims. That is, Jews defending themselves would be prosecuted, Jews organizing to defend themselves would be declared terrorists and imprisoned, and Muslim violence against Jews would be ignored.
And no, most of that Muslim migration was not caused by Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link